Charles III: Coronation Information and Musings - Part 2

[Durham]

Interesting also that the Prime Minister, a Hindu, will give a reading from the New Testament after the discussion on here about non-Christian involvement in a Christian service.

A real misstep this. I’m surprised that he agreed to do it.

 

[Ista]

A real misstep this. I’m surprised that he agreed to do it.

I'm sure the choice of the reader for the Epistle was very carefully considered, and the explanation is given in the order of the service:

The Prime Minister is invited to read, as has become modern custom seen at other State Ceremonies, by virtue of his public office, being the Prime Minister of the nation in which the Coronation takes place.

Taking the above into consideration, it would be much more shocking if the Prime Minister were not permitted to take part in the Coronation.

It's a very lovely and moving ceremony, and I like the inclusion of one of my favorite hymns, as well as a wealth of newly commissioned music. I'm also very much looking forward to seeing the Queen's new Robe of Estate. What we can see of it in the photos looks amazing.

 

[duchessrachel]

I am looking so forward to the Coronation. I won't get to watch live, sadly, but I am hoping that BritBox will have replays of everything involved with it. After the Coronation, will "Consort" be dropped when referencing Queen Camilla?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

After the Coronation, will "Consort" be dropped when referencing Queen Camilla?

Yes. According to a palace briefing, her title will remain The Queen Consort until the coronation. When she is crowned, it will be changed to Queen Camilla (but not The Queen).

See here:

After publishing the coronation invitation, which referred to "Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla", the palace briefed the media that on the day of their coronation on May 6, her formal title will be changed from The Queen Consort to Queen Camilla.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-official-Coronation-portrait-released.html

Asked about the title – when the accompanying press release itself still referred to Camilla as the Queen Consort – a senior royal aide confirmed: ‘It made sense to refer to her Majesty as The Queen Consort in the early months of His Majesty’s reign, to distinguish from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

‘Queen Camilla is the appropriate title to set against King Charles on the invitation. The Coronation is an appropriate time to start using “Queen Camilla” in an official capacity. All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name.’

It is understood that Buckingham Palace will amend its website to reflect the change next month.
​

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/2...consort-title-king-charles-coronation-invite/

The Palace said Queen Consort is Camilla’s “rank” while Queen will be her title.

She will officially be called Queen Camilla in all royal documents from the day of the Coronation. The royal website will be updated after she is crowned.
​

Though the palace aide claims that "All former Queen Consorts have been known as Queen plus their first name", the official title of at least the most recent queens consort was simply The Queen, without using a first name, during the lifetime of their husbands. So I suppose the next guessing game and protest from traditionalists will be about changing Queen Camilla to The Queen.

Also, it is common to say "queen consorts" in casual conversation, but the fact that a royal palace aide presenting a formal briefing did not use the grammatically correct pluralization (Queens Consort, not Queen Consorts) leads to me wonder how much royal palace aides actually know about royal titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For anyone interested in a comparison, the programs for the last two coronations:

Coronation of King George VI, 12 May 1937
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7073

Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, 2 June 1953
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/40020/supplement/6223

 

[yukari]

I don't think it's a good idea ...

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles

(...)

The public will be given an active role in the ceremony for the first time, with people around the world set to be asked to cry out and swear allegiance to the King.

This "homage of the people" replaces the traditional "homage of peers" where hereditary peers swear allegiance to the new monarch. Instead everyone in the Abbey and watching at home will be invited to pay homage in what Lambeth Palace described as a "chorus of millions".

The order of service will read: "All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."

It will be followed by the playing of a fanfare.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will then proclaim "God save the King", with all asked to respond: "God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever."

(...)

I'm sorry to be such a downer, but it feels like Charles is trying too hard for acceptance? acknowledgment? validation? to the point that this whole "inclusivity" feels forced.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think it's a good idea ...

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles



I'm sorry to be such a downer, but it feels like Charles is trying too hard for acceptance? acknowledgment? validation? to the point that this whole "inclusivity" feels forced.

I like it.

With the use of TV this will allow any citizen of any realm, who wishes to do so, to make a personal promise of allegiance.

That is all it is. In the past that act was limited only to the peers until 1838 all of them in person and from 1902 via the most senior peer in each rank in person while the other peers of that degree did so at their seat.

Now everyone - peer or commoner, in the Abbey or not, can do so if that is their personal wish.

Of course citizens of countries that aren't realms shouldn't do so as most country's would frown on someone taking such an oath to a foreign Head of State.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think it's a good idea ...

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles



I'm sorry to be such a downer, but it feels like Charles is trying too hard for acceptance? acknowledgment? validation? to the point that this whole "inclusivity" feels forced.

It sounds a bit odd too. Rather than a few dukes and earls pledging allegiance to the King, he expects millions of people in the UK or indeed all over the world to do it in their homes or wherever they are watching the service? Honestly it is a bad idea and I don't know how the public will react.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It sounds a bit odd, too. Rather than a few dukes and earls pledging allegiance to the King, he expects millions of people in the UK or indeed all over the world to do it in their homes or wherever they are watching the service? Honestly it is bad idea and I don't know how the public will react.

How is it a bad idea?

No one is forced to do anything but those who want to can now do so at a specific moment in the service.

He has simply extended the homage by including all who want to to do so. In 1953 only the peers could do so while now all citizens can do so.

I notice that the two people who have said it is a bad idea are not from realms anyway so it doesn't apply to them.

As a citizen of a realm I see it differently for the simple reason that this man is now my King. I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II when I joined the army and so have already sworn allegiance to Charles III.

 

[VictoriaB]

I agrée with ILuvbertie. It’s a personal choice. Nobody will be forced to pledge allegiance. People might feel a bit daft sitting in a pub & pledging allegiance over their pint but those who have chosen to go to a coronation event might like the opportunity.

I like the idea of giving everyone being given the opportunity to pledge their allegiance, if they wish to, rather than limiting it to hereditary peers.

I think I might be one of those choosing to join in from elsewhere.

 

[wbenson]

Information about the robes to be worn at the coronation:

https://www.royal.uk/news-and-activ...t-glimpse-at-their-majesties-coronation-robes

Interesting that they'll both be wearing crimson robes on the way there. I didn't realize it until someone pointed it out in the last thread, but Queen Elizabeth wore her purple robe the whole time in 1937, and I think Queen Mary did as well in 1911 based on the limited photography. Perhaps the mismatch would be more jarring in the era of color photography.

 

[Stefan]

Interesting that they'll both be wearing crimson robes on the way there. I didn't realize it until someone pointed it out in the last thread, but Queen Elizabeth wore her purple robe the whole time in 1937, and I think Queen Mary did as well in 1911 based on the limited photography. Perhaps the mismatch would be more jarring in the era of color photography.

I noticed that. Interesting is also that the uses older existing Robes, instead of making all of them new. Wonder if the robes of States are those which have been worn by King George VI. and Queen Elizabeth II. always at the respective State opening of Parliament.

 

[Spheno]

Interesting that they'll both be wearing crimson robes on the way there. I didn't realize it until someone pointed it out in the last thread, but Queen Elizabeth wore her purple robe the whole time in 1937, and I think Queen Mary did as well in 1911 based on the limited photography. Perhaps the mismatch would be more jarring in the era of color photography.

Look at this old postcard, colours are obvious https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/290837809799
So it is an old tradition.

 

[tommy100]

Its a really poorly worded headline by the BBC IMO, the public are not being asked to as if its expected. They are simply being invited to join in with the allegiance pledge as it takes place in the Abbey. Only William will make the pledge on his own, everyone else in the congregation will say it afterwards at the same time. Its works better than having all the peers do it while the NHS workers etc sit there "unworthy" of doing so.

 

[Curryong]

Aussies asked to pledge allegiance to the King in their homes, a request that hasn’t gone down too well.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...e/news-story/f9593d797afd137a7f18016ced0d9e60

 

[shady lady]

I think it (the chance to pledge allegiance) is a good idea in that it makes it available to all so they can make the choice for themselves, and makes the entire nation a part of the historic occasion. I get that, I just don't know how I feel about doing it myself. I'm undecided.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is all way too elaborate. The only thing the King should do, and he already is King anyway, is to swear allegiance to the not-written Constitution and maintain and defend the rights of all in his realms and the territories under the Crown.

That is it. That is the essence.

All this is really a circus and is only alienating the common citizen worrying about the costs of living or endlessly waiting on NHS waiting lists or experiencing impossibilities finding an affordable house.

Pledging allegiance, Holy Oil, Golden Spurs, Stone of Scone, I am sorry, even for a royalist all this can look way overdone anno 2023, let alone to not-so-royalists... I can very well imagine how this looks to a farmer in Québec or a pizzeria owner in Melbourne. Good heavens...

 

[yukari]

(...)

I notice that the two people who have said it is a bad idea are not from realms anyway so it doesn't apply to them.

(...)

Erm, some of the most active posters in this forum are Americans, which not a monarchy nor under any monarchy. Should they stop voicing their opinion in this forum because none of it would apply to them? Should European members not allowed to post their opinion about Asian monarchies because it doesn't apply to them anyway?

But if I may offer my (unwanted? unsolicited?) opinion, if people want to chant "God Save The King" during the coronation, of course they're free to do so, but the wording of "people are asked to swear allegiance to the king" might not bode well for some as proven by the article Curryong posted above.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Aussies asked to pledge allegiance to the King in their homes, a request that hasn’t gone down too well.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...e/news-story/f9593d797afd137a7f18016ced0d9e60

Clearly people who don't understand that it is simply a CHOICE and no one has to do it.

Some will, many won't ... it doesn't matter.

I don't take a lot of notice of news outlets who get their stories by trolling social media comments to make their 'news'.

 

[W.Y.CII]

I think it's an odd idea as well, not necessarily bad, but odd. Anyway I'm not from the realms so I probably better shut my mouth

 

[Denville]

Erm, some of the most active posters in this forum are Americans, which not a monarchy nor under any monarchy. Should they stop voicing their opinion in this forum because none of it would apply to them? Should European members not allowed to post their opinion about Asian monarchies because it doesn't apply to them anyway?

But if I may offer my (unwanted? unsolicited?) opinion, if people want to chant "God Save The King" during the coronation, of course they're free to do so, but the wording of "people are asked to swear allegiance to the king" might not bode well for some as proved by the article Curryong posted above.

Fuss about nothing IMO

 

[wbenson]

I find the reintroduction of the sermon more perplexing. Three of the four 20th century coronations didn't have one, and I think the opinion after the sermon in 1911 was that it showed that nothing much was missed in 1902, so it was removed from the plans for future coronations. All that scrambling for things to cut to keep it under two hours, and they're using precious minutes to bring that back? I suppose it is a church service...

 

[Claire]

Personally I think that the asking the general public to say the oath is a terrible idea. It is literally opening itself to abuse and protest. You can image that the whole internet of people yelling various versions of their protest towards an oath online, on twitter, youtube - everywhere.
By asking the public directly it became personal - and well you dont want a country and commonwealth that is so divided and uneducated (and yes - we are) to do something so partisan. It might seem trival to most - but it can have sever consequences in the relationship of the monarchy and its subjects going forward. YOu can image people refusing to go to court as it is His majesty's. There might be a whole movement of people requesting the CR be removed from their uniforms, their post stamps and money as they didnt take any oath - it opens up a crack that people will take advantage of.
The Coronation was supposed to be something that could unite all of the United Kingdowm and the Commonwealth - but the obvious forcing of religious inclusions and push towards diversity results in more people been alienated and excluded. Isnt that ironic?

 

[Alison H]

Aussies asked to pledge allegiance to the King in their homes, a request that hasn’t gone down too well.

https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...e/news-story/f9593d797afd137a7f18016ced0d9e60

No-one's demanding that anyone pledge allegiance. People are just being invited to join in if they choose to do so.

I don't think it's one of the better ideas, though. I've just seen a republican friend of a friend post "Oh, I'll be swearing all right," on Facebook. As Claire said, it does rather open itself up to abuse.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Personally I think that the asking the general public to say the oath is a terrible idea. It is literally opening itself to abuse and protest. You can image that the whole internet of people yelling various versions of their protest towards an oath online, on twitter, youtube - everywhere.
By asking the public directly it became personal - and well you dont want a country and commonwealth that is so divided and uneducated (and yes - we are) to do something so partisan. It might seem trival to most - but it can have sever consequences in the relationship of the monarchy and its subjects going forward. YOu can image people refusing to go to court as it is His majesty's. There might be a whole movement of people requesting the CR be removed from their uniforms, their post stamps and money as they didnt take any oath - it opens up a crack that people will take advantage of.
The Coronation was supposed to be something that could unite all of the United Kingdowm and the Commonwealth - but the obvious forcing of religious inclusions and push towards diversity results in more people been alienated and excluded. Isnt that ironic?

And the strange thing is: he already is King since September, he was solemnly proclaimed and no one fights his rightful place. Now, so many months furtherer, suddenly all this is needed. For what? That is why it feels like a theatre, and lots of it really is just invented theatre too, thanks to the fantasies of King Edward VII.

People have a sharp eye for this and immediately see through the superficialness of all this. Maybe it was better - like in other monarchies - to have the ceremony immediately after the funeral period. But now it really feels as serving mustard after the meal has already been eaten.

 

[Mbruno]

Personally I think that the asking the general public to say the oath is a terrible idea. It is literally opening itself to abuse and protest. You can image that the whole internet of people yelling various versions of their protest towards an oath online, on twitter, youtube - everywhere.
By asking the public directly it became personal - and well you dont want a country and commonwealth that is so divided and uneducated (and yes - we are) to do something so partisan. It might seem trival to most - but it can have sever consequences in the relationship of the monarchy and its subjects going forward. YOu can image people refusing to go to court as it is His majesty's. There might be a whole movement of people requesting the CR be removed from their uniforms, their post stamps and money as they didnt take any oath - it opens up a crack that people will take advantage of.
The Coronation was supposed to be something that could unite all of the United Kingdowm and the Commonwealth - but the obvious forcing of religious inclusions and push towards diversity results in more people been alienated and excluded. Isnt that ironic?

I think you nailed it, Claire!

Members of Parliament and members of the armed forces, the judiciary, the intelligence services, the Privy Council, and similar officers take the oath of allegiance because they are officers of the state and, in the UK system, the Crown is constitutionally the State and the King is the personification thereof. Asking now the entire country and citizens of the Commonwealth realms who might be watching the coronation to pledge allegiance to the King personally is taking it to a whole new level.

I admit, as Yukari said, that I am probably biased on this matter having grown up in the Americas and in a republic, but I agree it is divisive and a gift to the republican movement. I can totally imagine the protesters among the crowd shouting "You are not my King" or "We are citizens, not subjects" while a handful of devout royalists take the oath. I don't think there will be protests inside the Abbey, but some people might choose to remain silent. Not to mention, as Claire said, other posssible social media reactions.

In any case. that seems to go against the intention of modernizing and "slimming down" the monarchy or reflecting Britain's "democratic values", which King Charles III was expected to stand for. It is more like returning to a medieval concept of monarchy.

I know it is not my place to opine, not being a Commonwealth citizen, but, given my interest in constitutional issues, I felt to need to say it. I won't raise the issue again.

 

[Lilyflo]

The invitation to pay homage to the king is only for those who wish to do so. That includes everyone on the planet IMO. Those of us for whom King Charles III is our Head of State might feel it applies to us exclusively but it's not a binding pledge so anyone can say the words without fearing their own government will arrest them for treason! So, forum friends from around the globe, please join us if you wish to.

 

[Hallo girl]

And the strange thing is: he already is King since September, he was solemnly proclaimed and no one fights his rightful place. Now, so many months furtherer, suddenly all this is needed. For what? That is why it feels like a theatre, and lots of it really is just invented theatre too, thanks to the fantasies of King Edward VII.

People have a sharp eye for this and immediately see through the superficialness of all this. Maybe it was better - like in other monarchies - to have the ceremony immediately after the funeral period. But now it really feels as serving mustard after the meal has already been eaten.

there were comments not that long ago on here, maybe not this thread, about the plans not having enough pomp and ceremony, now as we get details posters are saying there shouldnt be anything. make up your minds.

 

[Durham]

I'm sure the choice of the reader for the Epistle was very carefully considered, and the explanation is given in the order of the service:



Taking the above into consideration, it would be much more shocking if the Prime Minister were not permitted to take part in the Coronation.

I understand the constitutional explanation but I don’t find it convincing. I think if any PM follows another faith then they should have the option not to read. Everyone would understand.

For all we know he may well find the idea uncomfortable. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he did. Obviously we’re not going to know either way.

I think this has the potential to be a rather odd & awkward moment in the service.

 

[SLV]

How is it a bad idea?

No one is forced to do anything but those who want to can now do so at a specific moment in the service.

He has simply extended the homage by including all who want to to do so. In 1953 only the peers could do so while now all citizens can do so.

I notice that the two people who have said it is a bad idea are not from realms anyway so it doesn't apply to them.

As a citizen of a realm I see it differently for the simple reason that this man is now my King. I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II when I joined the army and so have already sworn allegiance to Charles III.

I like the idea. I would do so if I were British.